Antinatalism is making worldwide headlines...
It looks like the philosophy of antinatalism is making a bit of a splash in various major news publications. The story behind it is this 27-year old from Mumbai who is suing is parents for procreating him. His parents are actually lawyers. He realizes that it probably won't see the light of day (or a court room), but it is more of a publicity stunt to get attention to the antinatalism cause. His parents are actually encouraging him and are proud of his bravery to speak out.. even if it is about their decision to have him. It sounds like he and his parents actually have a good relationship, but he just really believes in the idea that procreation leads to suffering for the individual and other collateral damage. Here is an example of all the news sources you can find the story and the term antinatalism itself. Some of the articles do a better job explaining the philosophy and mention David Benatar and his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. The interesting answers in the comments sections mention that he should have a post-life abortion or what not, which isn't a very thoughtful response, but typifies the average person's initial reaction.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/7/18215586/india-man-suing-parents-giving-birth-antinatalism-raphael-samuel
http://time.com/5524869/india-anti-natalism-sue-parents/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/what-is-antinatalism-and-why-raphael-samuel-of-mumbai-is-suing-his-parents-for-giving-birth-to-him/articleshow/67882775.cms
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/7/18215586/india-man-suing-parents-giving-birth-antinatalism-raphael-samuel
http://time.com/5524869/india-anti-natalism-sue-parents/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/what-is-antinatalism-and-why-raphael-samuel-of-mumbai-is-suing-his-parents-for-giving-birth-to-him/articleshow/67882775.cms
Comments (7)
Atheism, right?
Nihilism, but not quite... more like a desire for nihilism
What else?
What positions are incompatible?
Theism
Agnosticism
What else?
A novel way to sell some ad space and introduce anti-natalism to the masses, I guess. But... apart from you announcing the story, is there a point for discussion here?
I just thought it was relevant in the fact that what seems like an obscure, specifically philosophical position, has gotten a lot of attention recently around the globe. If you feel this is more suited for the lounge, I am not opposed but I do think it is relevant to this forum as it is about a philosophical position that has been debated here and also illustrates that that it does have some press. It would be equivalent if a modern Stoic group has been made some waves. I also think that would be relevant to post somewhere in this forum.
Sure, it's relevant to the forum and fine to post it. But yes, the lounge is the best place for it if there's no philosophical point to debate.
I agree. Since this is more of an announcement, like "hey look at this", and not meant as a platform for debate, it should go in the Lounge.
Any position which bolsters an X goal for child rather than considering whether to create harm would be incompatible. But that doesn't necessarily have to do with one's metaphysical position.
No. I'm not an Atheist, but I agree that it's undesirable to contribute the overcrowding of the world, and that it's undesirable to be the proximate physical mechanism of the start of a life (...for which one can't guarantee a favorable or successful outcome, or one free of undue suffering..)
No. Absurdists and Nihilists are right about life not having meaning or purpose. (I'd add that neither does it need one.) But dictionaries seem to strongly imply a negative value-judgment about that, for Absurdists, and especially Nihilists. ...a belief that life needs, but doesn't have, purpose or meaning.
In fact, when a dictionary says that those people believe that there's no value to life, that tautologically is a value-judgment, an unsupported expression of feeling rather than a supportable philosophical position.
"Alright" is a value. I suggest that, overall, what-is, is good.
Not so. Why should the Antinatalist position that I agreed with at the top of this post be incompatible with Theism?
I remind you that not all Theists believe that God created this physical world and caused our lives to happen. For example, the Gnostics don't believe that.
Yes, there's local badness, misfortune, suffering. This life and any suffering in it, is temporary.
At the end-of-lives, or at the end of this life if there isn' reincarnation, as sleep deepens, you won't know that there was or even could be, such things as a life, time, events concerns, problems, menace, lack or incompletion.
Because you won't know of such a thing as time, you'll have reached timelessness.
Because that sleep is final and timeless, I suggest that it's the natural, normal, usual and rightful state-of-affairs.
Barbara Ehrenreich pointed out that death doesn't interrupt iife. Life (temporarily, briefly) interrupts sleep.
Mark Twain said something to this effect:
"Before I was born, I was dead for millions of years, and it didn't inconvenience me a bit."
I suggest that, overall, what-is, is good.
Reality is benevolent, That's an expression of my impression, not an assertion. The nature of overall Reality isn't a topic for assertion, argument or proof.
Michael Ossipoff
7 Sat (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
...Saturday of the 7th week of the calendar-year that started with the Monday that started nearest to the South-Solstice.